Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More specifically, you made a claim about information. I showed you in detail how it originates in a population genome and you suddenly stopped mentioning it.
And I showed you how one such irreducibly complex enzyme system was observed to evolve. I asked you specifically how the new enzyme system and regulator did not meet Behe's definition of irreducible complexity and you declined to answer. For reasons that seem obvious.
Science is, after all, methodologically naturalistic. So is plumbing. A plumber who is also a believer would probably admit the possibility of clogged pipes being caused by demons of blockage, but would still take a naturalistic approach to dealing with the problem. Here, you seem to be confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism.
I even gave you an example. Most people who think they hate evolution, don't know what it is.
Extra set of limbs on a tetrapod, for example. Transitional stages for any evolved trait must be at least neutral in selective value.
Yep. Since I've already given you some reading on the evolution of prokaryote flagella, let's look at the circulatory system. What step in the evolution of a circulatory system from a simple coelomate to an advanced vertebrate, do you claim is impossible? Be specific. If you don't know how circulatory systems work in all cases,this might help you:
Unfortunate. You seem to have learned a great deal, and we got to debunk a lot of creationist stories herein.
And you've tried to hand-wave it all away when shown to you. We expect that. But others here will see it and perhaps take away some greater understanding of the way evolution works.
It's significant that acceptance of evolution and common descent is strongest among people who know most about biology. As you see, given the evidence, a majority of mainline Christians accept evolution.
It's like my wife explaining to me how insurance plans work. I can sort of get the gist of it, but she spent a career handling authorizations for a medical school, and she has a lawyer's mind for rules and policies that I can't hope to fully understand. I know my limitations, and I wouldn't presume to tell her how policies and government rules interact.
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
This is a woefully ignorant comment typical of creationists.
| Time Period | Test Method | Prediction Tested by Evolution | Prediction Confirmed? | Specific Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1850s | Comparative Anatomy | Species with shared ancestry will show structural similarities | ✅ Yes | Mammalian forelimbs (bat wings, whale flippers, human arms) share the same bone arrangement |
| 1859 | Naturalistic Observation | Organisms will adapt to local environments via natural selection | ✅ Yes | Galápagos finch beak variation linked to diet; observed environmental adaptation |
| 1860s–1900s | Paleontology (Fossil Record) | Transitional forms between major groups should exist | ✅ Yes | Archaeopteryx (bird–reptile), Tiktaalik (fish–tetrapod), Australopithecus (ape–human) |
| 1900s | Mendelian Genetics | Variation and heredity are needed for natural selection | ✅ Yes | Mendel’s pea experiments demonstrated predictable inheritance patterns |
| 1910s–1930s | Population Genetics | Populations will evolve predictably based on allele frequency changes | ✅ Yes | Hardy–Weinberg law, peppered moth allele frequencies tracked during industrial pollution |
| 1953 | DNA Structure & Molecular Biology | All life will share a common molecular basis | ✅ Yes | Universal genetic code; DNA composed of A, T, G, C in all organisms |
| 1960s | Protein Sequencing | More closely related species will have more similar proteins | ✅ Yes | Cytochrome c and hemoglobin sequences show 98% identity between humans and chimps |
| 1970s | Radiometric Dating | Evolutionary transitions will occur in chronological order | ✅ Yes | Dinosaur fossils predate birds; fish fossils predate amphibians |
| 1970s | Cladistics & Phylogenetics | Organisms should group into nested hierarchies | ✅ Yes | DNA-based phylogenies of primates and mammals match morphology-based trees |
| 1980s | DNA Hybridization | Genetic similarity correlates with relatedness | ✅ Yes | DNA melting-point comparisons showed humans closer to chimps than gorillas |
| 1990s | Ancient DNA & PCR | Modern and extinct humans should share significant DNA | ✅ Yes | Neanderthal genome shares ~1–4% with modern Eurasian humans |
| 2001–present | Whole Genome Sequencing | Common ancestry predicts extensive DNA homology | ✅ Yes | Human–chimp genome is ~98.8% identical; shared pseudogenes like vitamin C gene (GULO) |
| 2000s–present | Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Development) | Shared developmental pathways in distant species | ✅ Yes | Hox genes control body plans in insects and vertebrates; conserved across taxa |
| 2010s–present | CRISPR & Functional Genomics | Predicts testable functions for homologous genes | ✅ Yes | Knockout of conserved genes (e.g. Pax6) disrupts eye formation in flies, mice, and humans |
| Ongoing | Experimental Evolution | Evolution should occur under selective pressure | ✅ Yes | Lenski’s E. coli evolved ability to metabolize citrate after ~30,000 generations |
| Ongoing | Comparative Epigenomics | Regulatory evolution will explain complex traits beyond gene content | ✅ Yes | Differences in limb length and brain development due to enhancer changes in human–chimp comparison |
We re trying to discover how to best communicate the answers to you. We are trying to answer your questions, have given you answers but you blow off ev everything we try to tell you and repeat the same demands for answers over and over. Part of the problem may be that you lack background information. That's why it might be useful to understand what you background is so we can he;p out. Framing answers to someone with a college degree is going to be rather different than framing answers for a high school graduate.
Except they know that the question you ask have answers, and are willing to explain it to you. We also need some help from you. For example, Bradskii gave you the basic equation for Information Theory when you were making an argument about information, but you never responded to it or enter into a discussion about it so we don't know if you understood it or thought it was wrong or what. If you want to learn how the creation of information works in evolution you have to start there build on it. 50 pages? Before you get through this it might be 500.
Science is pragmatic. If a method works at learning more about the world, it's used. If not, it's not used. Doesn't matter how pretty it is.
Biblical pilpul is not part of science. Can't be.
So far, nothing found by science contradicts the Bible. Much of science contradicts the YEC re-interpretations of the Bible. But that's not something God or science are responsible for.
Why do we have to? Evolution, as you re well aware, is an orderly process. It seems not to require outside intervention at the level of contingent causality. Some theists and some athiests take the position that evolution is bereft of divine Providence, but is not a necessary conclusion.
Why would you be required to "align with atheists" on any other issues?
God doesn't say they were all created at once. Most Christians don't even think the "days" of Genesis are actual time periods.
Arguably it is a key foundation of science. What interests scientists isn't what they know, but what they don't know. Otherwise they wouldn't be scientists, merely observers of existing information. This is difficult for those distant from science to understand.
Have you read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about Divine Providence and necessity vs. contingency?
It's as easy to make observational errors as it is to make erroneous inferences. The key in science is reproducabiliy. Results, if they can't be replicated, are not valid.
